• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Contrary to Biblical History: Canaanites are alive and well

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I do not believe that to be accurate. Would you mind citing some supporting material?

You are not the first to point to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. You might wish to check out Wiki's First Council of Nicaea:Misconceptions before proceeding.
Nope. Wiki is editable by ANYONE. And I refuse to trust such an important point, to a source that can literally be said to say anything the True Believers™ want it to say. They have a serious investment, in keeping the BS from being exposed.

Care to try again?
No. I am more than willing to let your belligerent willful ignorance and pathetic refusal to cite supporting evidence speak for itself.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
I prefer my resource-- perhaps you missed it from earlier? It's an essay by the noted historian, Dr Richard Carrier.
Carrier is an ideologue with an agenda.

But by all means, hold to your zeitgeist-esque understanding of history while accusing everyone else of being too biased to see the truth.
 
I see projecting what someone DID NOT SAY is one of your "tools to argue". Nice.

What is that called again? Strawman-something-something?

I'll add logical fallacies to the list of things of which you talk yet know nothing about

I said the linked article doesn't support your point and asked you to prove me wrong by actually quoting the specific points from the article that you see as validating your perspective.


And what do you imagine my argument was?

My argument was and is, that the "christian bible" was fabricated by Constantine's committee.

You may have projected something else into that-- but that's what I stated, and it's supported by my link.

Yes, that's how I interpreted it and what I was referring to when I said your article doesn't support your claim (it actually contradicts it if you bother to read the actual words).

I know what your argument is because it is a myth commonly repeated by people who tick the boxes of being hostile to religion, highly credulous, lacking intellectual curiosity and poorly versed in history and critical thinking.

Anyway, there is no 'Christian Bible', there are numerous Christian Bibles built around a common core of canonical texts but with some variation.

The various canons developed organically over a few centuries, and even if Constantine and his 'committee' had wanted to 'fabricate' it, he wouldn't have been able to. You don't seem to understand the realities of governance in the 4th C.

If the word "fabricated" is too confusing to you? I suggest you consult a dictionary...

... or what the heck, I'll be nice:

Synonyms for fabricate
verb
manufacture, assemble, concoct, construct, contrive, dream up, formulate, invent, brainstorm, build, compose, create, devise, erect, fashion, form, frame, join, make, mix, organize, produce, shape, structure, cobble up, cook up, fit together, head trip, knock together, make up, piece together, prefab, put together, think up, throw together, throw up, turn out, whip up, whomp up

If you ever actually move beyond misplaced condescension and get round to checking your own facts... :D

 
Last edited:

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
No. I am more than willing to let your belligerent willful ignorance and pathetic refusal to cite supporting evidence speak for itself.

HA! You cite Wikipedia as your "evidence". And you cannot find anything superior?

But I cite an actual historian? Which you obviously did not bother to read?

Nice. You can call me "belligerent" if you like-- but your continued inability to prove that your myth is NOT a myth? Is duly noted.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Carrier is an ideologue with an agenda.

But by all means, hold to your zeitgeist-esque understanding of history while accusing everyone else of being too biased to see the truth.

LMAO! Oh, you are so FUNNY! You-- who's agenda Dare Not Be Questioned--EVER, have the hubris to complain about someone actually trained in actual history-- just because they do not hold your delusional world-view...

You are so cute when you try to be .... reasonable.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I'll add logical fallacies to the list of things of which you talk yet know nothing about

I said the linked article doesn't support your point and asked you to prove me wrong by actually quoting the specific points from the article that you see as validating your perspective.




Yes, that's how I interpreted it and what I was referring to when I said your article doesn't support your claim (it actually contradicts it if you bother to read the actual words).

I know what your argument is because it is a myth commonly repeated by people who tick the boxes of being hostile to religion, highly credulous, lacking intellectual curiosity and poorly versed in history and critical thinking.

Anyway, there is no 'Christian Bible', there are numerous Christian Bibles built around a common core of canonical texts but with some variation.

The various canons developed organically over a few centuries, and even if Constantine and his 'committee' had wanted to 'fabricate' it, he wouldn't have been able to. You don't seem to understand the realities of governance in the 4th C.



If you ever actually move beyond misplaced condescension and get round to checking your own facts... :D


Blah-blah-blah. Nothing you said contradicts my point:

My point was that there was no Official Christian Bible™ prior to Constantine's fabrication committee.

Prior to that? You had nothing but a vast contradicting collection of Friend-of-a-Friend stories, myths and legends.

NOT something you would expect if there was an a actual GOD behind ANY of it.

The fact that there was no Official Christian Bible™ until 300 years after the alleged events?

Is just about all the proof you need to show there could not be any god behind this myth.
 

Magus

Active Member
That is the LAND OF CANAAN
canaanmap.jpg

The people who lived in that land are called 'Canaanites' and they speak and write the 'Canaanite' language' .

Here is the Egyptian Empire
c66489ecb54f838386cbd68b35fdb97e--egypt-civilization-the-egyptian.jpg


Most of the history of Canaan is under occupation, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and Romans.

If 'Jews' are not Canaanites, then they obviously don't belong in that region, but why do they deny being Canaanites and yet, they use a Canaanite Language and worship Canaanites Deities.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
My point was that there was no Official Christian Bible™ prior to Constantine's fabrication committee.
That is a lie. Your point was:
And what do you imagine my argument was?

My argument was and is, that the "christian bible" was fabricated by Constantine's committee.
You have nowhere shown that "the 'christian bible' was fabricated by Constantine's committee," nor can you show where Carrier, who knows better, has made such a silly claim.
 

Magus

Active Member
Christian Bible was NOT fabricated during the time of Constantine, rather, the history of Constantine and his conversion was fabricated, most likely in the 11th century CE, that is when the Catholic Church was established.

There are no surviving histories or biographies dealing with Constantine's life and rule
Bleckmann, "Sources for the History of Constantine" (CC), 14; Corcoran, Empire of the Tetrarchs, 1; Lenski, "Introduction" (CC), 2–3.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Christian Bible was NOT fabricated during the time of Constantine, rather, the history of Constantine and his conversion was fabricated, most likely in the 11th century CE, that is when the Catholic Church was established.
<yawn>

ignore-list​

</yawn>
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Christian Bible was NOT fabricated during the time of Constantine,
The selection of the Christian canon was done during the latter part of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th, thus taking over 1/2 a century, and even then it wasn't entirely completed as they couldn't decide on the fate of the Apocrypha.

the history of Constantine and his conversion was fabricated, most likely in the 11th century CE, that is when the Catholic Church was established.
The CC was in place many centuries previous to that, especially provable since the reference to the "Catholic Church" goes back into the 2nd century c.e.

There are no surviving histories or biographies dealing with Constantine's life and rule
Bleckmann, "Sources for the History of Constantine" (CC), 14; Corcoran, Empire of the Tetrarchs, 1; Lenski, "Introduction" (CC), 2–3.
That's true but there are many references to him from other early sources. See: Constantine the Great - Wikipedia
 

Magus

Active Member
The CC was created by Pope Innocent III , All prior popes are historical fictional, only the Roman Emperors where called 'Pater Patria' abbreviated as 'PA PA' ( Pope), note' Pope Pius I and Antoninius Pius' existing at the same time in Rome. It seems Catholic Church as being pumping out historical fiction since the 11th century CE.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
The CC was created by Pope Innocent III
Pray tell, to what then, did Ignatius of Antioch refer to in 107? Or Cyril of Jerusalem? Or any of the other authors before Innocent III? Are the documents themselves falsely manufactured?
 

Magus

Active Member
Pray tell, to what then, did Ignatius of Antioch refer to in 107? Or Cyril of Jerusalem? Or any of the other authors before Innocent III? Are the documents themselves falsely manufactured?

They never was an Ignatius of Antioch, it is all historical fictional.
 

Magus

Active Member
This is really all I needed to see.

*goes to see what else is on the menu*

You are aware of Roman historians, for example, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Elder, Plutarch, Licinianus, Appian and Dio Cassius.

There don't seem to be any evidence for any first century Christian figures, St Clement, St Paul, Plutarch of Byzantium, Polycarp, Ignatius, Evodius, Papias of Hierapolis, Linus, Anacletus and Evaristus, they are not mentioned at all by Roman historians.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
LMAO! Oh, you are so FUNNY! You-- who's agenda Dare Not Be Questioned--EVER, have the hubris to complain about someone actually trained in actual history-- just because they do not hold your delusional world-view...
I have said that the premise of the OP is incorrect, that Constantine had nothing to do with establishing any biblical canon and that Nicaea was primarily concerned with addressing Arianism. Where exactly am I wrong?

Judges 1:27-36
Council of Nicaea | Christianity [325]
Constantine I | Biography, Accomplishments, Death, & Facts

You are so cute when you try to be .... reasonable.
You have yet to display anything resembling reason.
 
Last edited:

Magus

Active Member
The Old Testament pretty much debunk Christianity, so the Catholic Church are obviously very sensitive regarding the documents of the OT, they don't wanna undermine their fascist imperialistic policies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top